WSJ: Health Care Showdown

Wall Street Journal ^ | October 12, 2004 | Editorial

[OESY]

...Most Republicans avoid health care, but Mr. Bush sees that the Democratic vision is headed for a win by default, and so his campaign is making a serious effort to revive market incentives in health care.

At the center of his program are the Health Savings Accounts created by last year's Medicare bill. HSAs marry real insurance (i.e., coverage for high and unpredictable costs) with contributions to a savings account that can be "rolled over" from year to year.... [I]ndividuals, not insurance companies, "ration" most of their own health care, and young people get a chance to save tax-free for the higher medical bills that kick in later in life.

Mr. Bush is now pushing a couple of proposals to supercharge HSAs.... [P]ut individually purchased and employer provided insurance on a more equal tax footing by making insurance premiums fully tax deductible. And since a number of states regulate their insurance markets so heavily as to prevent the sale of high-deductible policies, Mr. Bush wants to take the long overdue step of creating a national market for coverage.... [I]t is crazy to block individuals from buying insurance policies across state lines wherever they can get the best deal.

A movement from employer-based to individually owned insurance, together with a national market for it, could have a revolutionary effect. Many lives would be improved if individuals no longer needed to fear moving or switching jobs for fear of losing their insurance. And an enormous drag on the efficient allocation of resources in the overall economy would be removed.

Americans are being offered a real choice of health care visions this November. We believe Mr. Kerry's leads inevitably toward the kind of low-innovation, low-quality government systems found in Europe and Canada. Mr. Bush's, meanwhile, would make health insurance more portable and flexible....

[Alberta's Child]

[I]t is crazy to block individuals from buying insurance policies across state lines wherever they can get the best deal.

No, it isn't -- and the Wall Street Journal is being disingenuous about this. This is precisely what the Tenth Amendment is all about. There is nothing that prevents people today from "buying insurance policies across state lines"; what the Journal is advocating here is a complete elimination of state insurance regulations in favor of just one more Federal responsibility that has no basis in constitutional law.